Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/28

Blurred. Hard to tell what the image is about. Nv8200p (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep beside from file name, i think image is good. it is just bad focus. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad focus means bad image. There is nothing in this image or its description to give it any educational context. Keeping all these POS images makes it harder to find the good ones. IMHO. Nv8200p (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO, logo exceeds threshold of originality ~delta (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, this was already deleted without notice to this thread. Was it a British school? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary ugly dick. Replace any use and delete. 186.172.152.104 03:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Was previously kept. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penis on grass? Is that a Chinese dish? Tiger penis I suppose... 186.172.152.104 13:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COMMONS:Commons is not censored PaterMcFly (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per all above. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Penis on the earth.jpg Taylor 49 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled-down dupe of File:Secretary Pompeo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (43814331801).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, before today I never saw the image😢 Baginda 480 (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the image can delete fast Baginda 480 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1975 self portrait? Not own work Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is in my possession, the subject of the photo left it to me in her inheritance, and I know for a fact that she made it herself (she often did this) with the use of a self-timer and tripod.

Thank you for your mindfulness! GksEOauJAn (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact COM:VRT so that this photo is not unnecessarily deleted, and thank you for uploading it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a long ago Project-Team at DFKI-Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a long ago Project Team (2013) at DFKI Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was obviously misused as a cheap file repository for this photo. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A poster from one of the hundreds of projects at DFKI! Absolutely superfluous picture that says nothing about DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I don't see why this should be a deletion reason. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will take a picture of a toilet in the DFKI building and declare it as related to the organization. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this and OmegaFallons talk page, as well as my own experiences dealing with it there seems to be a lot of problems with this template. Just to name a few it leads to a bunch of overcategorization. As well as the addition of pointless and obtuse dublicate categories to category structures that are already complex enough without the template being involved. There is also no way what-so-ever to deal with that because the template makes it impossible to remove or otherwise delete the problematic categories it created and added.

It doesn't help that OmegaFallon seems unable or unwilling to deal with most, if not all, of the issues it's causing. There was also no discussion about it or approval by the wider before it was implemented. Which there really should have been considering the massive number of categories it involves. Apparently the template isn't super intuitive or easy to edit either and it doesn't help that there's no documentation. So it should just be deleted. There's no reason we need a template like this one for this particular thing anyway. Nor is there a valid reason to make it impossible to edit or remove categories from thousands of subcategories just because a single user thinks their way of categorizing things is the best way to do it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Deletion is well possible, including 6 stupid redirects, after removing ca 7'000 transclusions. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how they work but apparently there's also like 9 subtempletes that will have to be dealt with as well. So its certainly going to be a hassle to deal with, but that's just all the more reason to delete it IMO. Clearly the things way to complex. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. You think I should nominate them for deletion now or it be better to just let an admin deal with them after this is closed depending on how it goes? (I think you could argue they should probably be deleted regardless of what ends up being the outcome of this, but I don't want to screw anything up by nominating for them for deletion in the meantime if there's some wierd dependency thing involved in it or something). --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? No. I want to delete however many it takes to cleanup the mess. If that's three, cool. If it's all 7000, that's cool to. I didn't look at every single category before I started this though because it's really a separate issue IMO to the overall issues caused by the template. I did decide to take this particular route instead of just nominating the 7000 categories for deletion in separate individual deletion requests though because the categories will just recreated or added back to other ones if they are deleted without template being dealt with in the meantime.

But the fact is that most, if not, all "meta categories with double criteria" are either just totally pointless, duplicate existing categories, make no sense, clearly go against the guidelines or have some combination of those issues. So say I have 5 of those 7000 categories deleted. Then all it takes is someone adding this template to something and we're right back where we started. That's fine, but I do think that we as users should have the say in how and when this template is used and it's pretty clear we don't have the say in either one.

In a perfect world that could probably be solved by pairing it down and documenting it. I don't really see that happening though and I rather live in reality then let it continue causing problems for no other reason then...What exactly? "Someone created it so it must be worth having"? It seems like you at least agree with me that it's a mess. It's fine if you don't think deleting the template is the way to clean it up. But realistically what actual alternative to deal with it beyond that is there at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo's of this starry ceiling are uploaded again and again. This is not allowed, the design is still copyrighted, and there is no FOP in Germany. Photos inside train stations in Germany have in addition not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . Therefore these images should be deleted imho.

• File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 02.jpg
• File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 03.jpg
• File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 04.jpg
• File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 05.jpg

Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no FOP in Germany". Wrong. 100% wrong. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep. The reversal above is clearly wrong. Sometimes we adhere too much to consistent decisions even when the past decisions were clearly wrong. Just having pinpoint lights in a ceiling is not sufficiently creative. Note that there is nothing artistic about their placement. It is a simple repeating pattern. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   Delete -- I don't think it has to be a complex painting or the like. Sometimes it's also a simple but creative idea what counts, and in case of a "starry sky"-like ceiling of an underground station it's definitely a creative idea. And yes, according to German law interior shots, including public interiors, are not FoP-covered. @Marcus Cyron: does Wikimedia Deutschland do any effort to get German FoP laws amended in more liberal direction for us? --A.Savin 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there are definitely efforts in the background. There was also the idea that we need to bring this question to the court in some way but in the past there was not a singe known case where the architect of a train or underground station tried to enforce the copyright on the building. GPSLeo (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How should I know? I don't have any ties to this club anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There I see only a {{PD-textlogo}}. Yes definitely, architectural design is more complex anyway. --A.Savin 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:03, 0:23-0:26, 1:22-1:28, 2:08-2:13, 3:34-3:51), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be difficult to argue de minimis when large parts of the video zooms in and focuses on copyrighted 3D artwork. --Cold Season (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete the file, those cutscenes can be blacked. About the 3D Artwork, why do we assume that the authors did'nt autorize the Chinese State News Agency to use those artworks?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about assuming is irrelevant (and let's say that they did authorized them to use it, so what?). You need to provide evidence that the 3D artwork is free to be used, if that's the angle you are arguing. It is not free, per the copyright as stated by Game Science. The 3D artwork does not appear incidentally and is, in fact, the main focus of the video. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Resolved by uploader. --Cold Season (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New blacked version uploaded. Working on the other video too.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:12), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete the file, those scenes can be blacked.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should black the scene before uploading the file.--№.N (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blacked, done.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope (half of an airplane visible behind the trees, image taken from the ground) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a date on the photo Mostafameraji (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Greetings to you

  Watermark on the photo is against the encyclopedic rules.

  You can use the "Crop Tools" tool in the Wikipedia repository to remove this problem so that the photo is not deleted.

  Wishing you all the best. Mostafameraji (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the user seems to be a valid user, commons is still not your webhost or photoalbum

• File:Syfullah Nabil in mid 2024.jpg
• File:Syfullah Nabil 0.3.jpg
• File:Syfullah Nabil 0.2.jpg
• File:Syfullah Nabil 0.1.jpg
• File:Syfullah Nabil.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe enough global contributions for 5 personal images to be ok. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No educational value, only used as a 'profile picture'(!) . Commons is not for storing your vacation snaps. Out of scope 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep Usable picture of a Jetboat in a marina. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

misinformation GeometricExplorer (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeometricExplorer: Please be more specific. Your current reason is not a valid reason for deletion. ···日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No educational value Hoo man (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adbusters corporate flag is the main subject of this file, and it is uploaded as fair use on English Wikipedia due to it being a derivative of multiple non-free logos. Xeroctic (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK? And that's bad? Or are you trying to say it should not be on commons, but should remain on the English Wikipedia? Mike Richardson (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep. Many of the logos are below the threshold of originality in the US and the remainder are probably de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ne fournit aucune preuve de respect des droits d'auteur Mickaël en résidence (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1972 photo, unlikely to be own work. Needs VRT Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why unlikely? User:Joburley could easily be someone in their 70s. Before what year do you consider it unlikely for it to be own work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the family crest of cardinal guido ascanio sforza shown on this page is wrong Giudice123 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy deletion: per discussion on itwiki this barnstar has been replace by Wikigrafico stemmi 1500.svg. This version could be deleted as it has no other COM:SCOPE. Thanks! Arrow303 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO.

• File:Comunidades.png
• File:Gentes (partito).png
• File:Progres (partito).png
• File:Lista Randaccio (MZF).png
• File:Logo Movimento Zona Franca.jpg
• File:La base logo.jpg
• File:Simbolo Partito dei Sardi.png
• File:Rossomori (partito).jpg
• File:Riformatori-Sardi.jpg

P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete Very obviously so. Delete unless it's old enough to be PD (and I doubt something that looks like this would be, but it's worth investigating). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.

• File:GrupoFagro.png
• File:GRUPO FAGRO.png

P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, relief).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Character sheet is a copyrighted design. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're allowed to post artistic photos which contain copyrighted objects under fair use. In this case, the character sheet details aren't 100% clear with the dice & pen on top. This isn't a usable scan of that character sheet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COM:FAIRUSE on Commons. Some Wikipedias allow files to be uploaded locally for fair use under specific conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This proposal has been listed at the following project: WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I don't believe it is, at least as depicted here.

In general, character sheets are primarily functional objects, not copyrightable works of art, and this certainly applies here. This sheet (like many others) is mostly made up of simple elements like boxes, lines, and checkboxes, which are elements that are too generic to be considered original.

If the entire character sheet was clearly depicted, one would be able to argue that the copyrighted logo makes the photograph a copyright violation. However, that part of the photograph is out of focus and blurred, and thus de minimis applies. And even if it doesn't, that part of the image can easily be edited to be even more blurred to make the logo completely unrecognizable, thus making deletion unnecessary. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, als Urheber wird Schaller GmbH angegeben, Urheber kann aber nur einr natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

je suis la propriétaire, j'ai supprimé mon article où cette image apparaissait Florence Lanquetin (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

je suis la propriétaire, j'ai supprimé mon article où cette image apparaissait, je ne veux plus que cette image soit sur internet, elle apparait sur google, c'est un membre de ma famille, je veux protéger ma famille, je ne veux pas que ses membres soient sur internet 2A01:CB0C:ADF:7400:855E:264E:CA5B:1FD4 01:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm OK with deletion, but I'm confused by the question of why you uploaded this personal image in the first place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep (one image description suggests as much); no usage, out of scope

• File:Vivas-logo-PS.jpg
• File:Ampro-only.jpg
• File:Ampro Pro Styl-logo-v2.jpg
• File:SnJ-logo-B-W.jpg

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Heinrich Niedieck, who died in 1955. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2026.

• File:Delbrück i. Westf. - 25Pf. 1921.jpg
• File:Delbrück i. Westf. - 3Mark 1921.jpg
• File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 1Mark 1921.jpg
• File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 50Pf. 1921.jpg
• File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 5Mark 1921.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 17:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by brand rep; no usage, out of scope

• File:ITransfer-iT-Logo.jpg
• File:Logo Radio ADO.png

Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope

• File:Logo-rentcars.png
• File:Rentcars aluguel de carros logo.png

Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily a deletion reason, but this is obviously not own work, and is it public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Netherzone as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image has a "public domain" license "copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years", yet it was created in 1931 and the creator of this work died in 1947. I am failing to understand how it could be in the pubic domain out of copyright. Yann (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also US works from 1931 need a copyright notice, and a renewal 28 years later. Yann (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the map is "©1931 JO MORA." That takes the image to at least 1931+28=1959. If the copyright was not renewed, then it is PD. If the copyright was renewed, that would take it to 1931+56=1987. COM:Hirtle chart says published with notice between 1929 and 1963 and renewed, then the term is 95 years after publication: 1931+95=2026. It would have to be published after 1978 for the 70 pma term to kick in (1947+70=2017).

It is all about whether the copyright was renewed.

https://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/maps/jo_mora/ suggests that it was not renewed. However, it also claims the 1931 map was black and white; the color map was published in 1941 and has some differences. Even if the 1931 map had not been renewed, we need to check if the 1941 version was renewed. Glrx (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I don't have any vested interest in keeping the map. Is there a mechanism to automatically delete it and its transclusions, and automatically restore them in 2026? Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 06:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the copyright tag to {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Glrx (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx: Did you check the registers for renewals? Yann (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for variations of "Jo Mora" last night and only turned up one registration/renewal. I did not check the actual volumes (I've only done book searches before). Today I've been looking at a lot of other Jo Mora images. Glrx (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jacinto Mora. Jo Mora (Q6204370). Glrx (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to fix: same image already on Commons:

1. File:Map made from the original watercolor and ink drawing by Jo Mora from 1931 of Yosemite Valley looking east, with cartoon-like (d1a95d92-1dd8-b71b-0bfa-fe4957169d43).jpg claims government employee
2. File:Map made from the original watercolor and ink drawing by Jo Mora from 1931 of Yosemite Valley looking east with cartoon-like (9ddd5213-1dd8-b71b-0bdd-e37eba835e29).jpg claims government employee

Glrx (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image that was going to be used for an article, but the article was deleted (w:en:Draft:Mohammed Slimani) Ahmedgalal433 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment It still could be a useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Seal of the Office of the Prime Minister of Thailand.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{No permission since|month=August|day=28|year=2024}}

• File:Sarodiya Brothers.png
• File:ARKA ROY SAROD TAALSEN AWARD.png
• File:ARKA ROY SAROD TAALSEN ACADEMY.png
• File:Telegraph Online Edugraph 18 under 18 Award 2024.png
• File:Felicitation by the Hon'ble Governor of Tripura.png
• File:The Doverlane Music Conference Winner's Award.png
• File:Bharat Ratna Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi Fellowship Award 2022.png
• File:KBR 5TH-PROG.png
• File:KBR 5TH.png
• File:Sarodiya Brothers (Arka Roy and Shounak Roy).png
• File:Sarodiya Brothers.jpg

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   I have just accepted permission for “File:Sarodiya Brothers.png” under ticket:2024090310004796. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   I have just accepted permission for “File:Telegraph Online Edugraph 18 under 18 Award 2024.png” under ticket:2024090310005339. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   I have just accepted permission for “File:The Doverlane Music Conference Winner's Award.png” under ticket:2024090310005115. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   I have just accepted permission for “File:Bharat Ratna Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi Fellowship Award 2022.png” under ticket:2024090310005188. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the 1922 film Nosferatu may be in the public domain, this file comes from a 2006 Blu-Ray restoration that contains new, copyrightable elements. 64.203.142.238 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak delete And what would these "new, copyrightable elements" be, exactly? As far as I know, the restoration was done with the intention to recreate the original as it was shown in 1922 as closely as possible, so "new, copyrightable elements" would be totally contrary to the goal of the restoration. So, for lack of new elements that pass the threshold of originality, I don't think we can delete the file based on this argument (as the newly recorded soundtrack, wich certainly *is* copyrighted, is not included), but there may be another reason: In Germany, there is a related right, the so-called "Schutz wissenschaftlicher Ausgaben", or protection of scholarly editions, with a duration of 25 years. If this 2006 restoration counts as a "scholarly edition" of the film, it would still be protected until 2031. But I can't imagine any additional protection, so, if we're cautious and delete the file as a possible "scholarly edition", I think it could be listed for undeletion in 2032, not too far in the future. This based on the fact that the film as such is now in the public domain in its country of origin, Germany, too (since 2020), as all participating creators of relevance for the term of protection according to German law have now died more than 70 years ago (see this 2023 discussion in German-language Wikipedia). In the US, it has entered the public domain a long time ago, anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding @Gestumblindi: Do we have a reason to believe that this version does indeed contain any new, copyrightable elements? And, if that is not the case, does the restoration of a film, and more specificially this kind of restoration, fall under the 25-year protection for "scholarly editions" (sec. 70 of the German Copyright Act)? Gnom (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some further context: The film was originally shown not in pure black and white, but tinted in several colors, and such a tinted copy was the base for this restoration (as per the file description). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the 1922 film Nosferatu may be in the public domain, this file comes from a 1995 restoration that contains new, copyrightable elements. 64.203.142.238 18:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: The original source from Paul Billet is deleted, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original source of this image, as cited in the StoryMaps source this was found on, is the w:Vicksburg Daily News. The image is from this story on March 26, 2023.

It was taken by David Day, and there is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government (He appears to be on the newspaper's staff), or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

Furthermore, pages of the Vicksburg Daily News are "Copyright © 2022 Vicksburg Daily News" per their footer.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is likely not own work, comes from archives. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Werner Dedl - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Werner Dedl - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author is Грунтовая Лаборатория Механика, not the uploader.

• File:Штамповые испытания грунта.jpg
• File:Results of pressuremeter test.jpg
• File:The Hardening Soil model.jpg

Yann (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is sourced from an interactiive mapping tool (Esri) embedded in an NWS web page.[1]

1. It contains a precipitation map which is in the public domain as a work of the US federal government, overlayed on a basemap provided by Garmin and by Here Maps, credited in the image itself. Coming from Garmin and Here, whatever elements each is providing to the basemap are presumably protected by copyright.

The web tool lets you change the basemap, and it looks like at least the Topographic version contains only free imagery (USGS), but I couldn't figure out how to combine this with the precipitation data.

2. Regardless of how differently we might interpret part of the NWS general disclaimer, this particular image is directly and unambiguously covered by the part that reads "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. This does not imply an endorsement of the third-party data/products or their provider by NOAA/National Weather Service. Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products."[2]

This is a clear copyvio and we need to delete it in its current form.

Maybe someone can regenerate the image without the copyrighted elements? Simply cropping them out would also work, but I think this would lose important context for the map. Rlandmann (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep – For several reasons, this should be kept. First off, the rainfall data is clearly the work of a U.S. government employee working for NOAA. This is confirmed via the NOAA logo in the top-right corner. The entire deletion reasoning rests on the background being somehow copyrighted, despite the satellite view clearly not being produced by a human. I also do not believe any aspect of this image is not free-to-use, given a U.S. government employee used it for official work, which was published to the public. That said, going on the sole theory of the nominator being correct (note, I don't believe they are correct), I fail to see how a satellite view, clearly made via a satellite/computer with almost certainly no human interaction, at least no human manually changing the satellite's data, meets the threshold of originality. What I see is a U.S. government employee, while on official duty, creating a map, with official government data, using satellite data, which was almost certainly not manually altered by a human between the satellite capturing photo & computer posting it. That does not pass the threshold of originality in my books, and the official U.S. government logo/known creation help me believe that as well. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this image is the logo of a sports company, which is placed without considering the terms of fair use and with the wrong license AMiR SLiDER (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep. Single letter M without any unusual stylistic elements. This would be {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a screencap from this video hosted on the NWSNorthernIndiana YouTube channel, which credits it to the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol is part of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and not an agency of the US federal government. There is no presumption that the video this frame was captured from is ineligible for copyright.

The video does seem to have been created via a dashcam. (Compare this OSHP dashcam footage; warning: graphic content) However there is clearly a human operator turning the camera to follow the tornado's path, so this does not fall under PD-automated.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong delete per precautionary principle. Borders license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to share my image anymore. Frank3111 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Unused, unidentified portrait with no source (looks like a photo/scan of a printed photo). Omphalographer (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image of an event that happened on March 6, 2024 was published on the @NWSPendleton X stream with the attribution "Thank you to Tonya Brewer for sharing these pictures with us!"[3]

There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

The attribution does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong delete again possible license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been well over a week without additional replies. I’m going to ping some folks into the discussion. @WeatherWriter @Sir MemeGod @GeorgeMemulous @Berchanhimez @Consigned @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @Jmabel @Yann @ChessEric @ChrisWx Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete NOT automatically an NWS photo. NWS offices can post whatever they want on Twitter, and it doesn't automatically put it into the public domain, especially if it's posted with attribution to someone who's sharing the photo with the office. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment has any effort been made to contact the photographer to ask their understanding of the matter? - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not of this one specifically, since it's completely outside the claimed upload rationale. However we interpret the disclaimer on weather.gov and how it operates, this image was never hosted there. So, in this and a bunch of similar cases, the disclaimer is a moot point.

More broadly:

• you can see the state of photographer outreach over NWS images noted here
• and the responses received to date here -- I haven't requested deletion of the "No"s on this list yet because many conversations over willingness to release are still open.

One pecularity of all these discussions is that the folks seeking to keep these images have not, generally, involved themselves in seeking or confirming photographers' permissions.

This reversal of the COM:ONUS derives from some folks insisting that the weather.gov disclaimer amounts to an assertion by the NWS that any images not marked with a formal copyright notice are in the public domain, and therefore no further permission is necessary.

This, despite the fact that we now have ample evidence that either this interpretation is incorrect, or that if it is correct, then what NWS employees do in practice when uploading and captioning files deviates so far from that intention as to make the disclaimer worthless.

We'll see how the RfC over this question shakes out.

But it's all irrelevant to this particular image and others like it. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep How is it not public domain if the caption thanks the person for sharing it to a government agency? ChessEric (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"w:Public Domain" has a very specific meaning here. It doesn't just mean "available to the public". It means that nobody owns copyright over the image.

Images might be in the Public Domain for a variety of reasons. The ones most commonly relevant to these discussions are:

1. it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was taken by a US federal government employee while on duty (for example, the DAT photos)
2. it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was produced by an automated system like a radar or uncontrolled webcam
3. for some pre-1989 images, because copyright wasn't properly registered under the laws of the time
4. for some pre-1963 images, copyright might have already expired
5. the one relevant to most of the images under discussion: the photographer willingly and explicitly gave up all their rights to their photo.

Sending a copy of a photo you took to somebody else (even a government agency) does not mean you are giving up all your rights to your photo. Nor does allowing somebody else (even a government agency) to use or publish your photo mean that you are giving up all your rights.

Just like, if I tell you you can use my car on Saturday afternoon, it doesn't mean you can just use it whenever you want. And it certainly doesn't mean that you can allow other people to use it (even if you park it under a sign that says "Feel free to use this car!" -- still not OK) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Credit to the photographer is absolutely not evidence of public domain - in fact, if anything, it's evidence that they aren't public domain. This also was never published on their website. By the logic of User:ChessEric we can take any image from X/Twitter that's shared with the caption "Thanks to (photographer)" and treat it as public domain... absurd. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: My apologies; I did not know that these photos came off a X/Twitter post. ChessEric (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kongs (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not real. The TV Series isn’t produced, being fake news and the image was conceived through AI.

A imagem não é real. A novela não está em produção, sendo uma notícia falsa e a imagem foi concebida por meio de IA. Kongs (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image of an event that happened on March 2, 2024 is a screencap taken from a video that was published on the @NWSHanford X stream, [4] crediting it further in the thread "it came from a user on Facebook - Gillian Salgado".[5]

There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

The attribution does not claim or imply that the videographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this video under a free license. (indeed, the NWS only credited the creator when someone from the LA Times sought permission to use it)

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Name dieser Datei entspricht nicht der dargestellten Person. Das Bild wird bereits unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drachenfels_Litho.jpg verwendet unter der richtigen Bezeichnung. Eine zeitgenössische Darstellug von Ludwig von Stieglitz ist unter https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Stieglitz#/media/Datei:Ludwig_Baron_Stieglitz_1779_Arolsen_-1843_St._Petersburg.jpg zu finden, die mit den erhaltenen Ölporträts in Übereinstimmung zu bringen ist. Sixtnitgern (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixtnitgern: Peter Geymayer, der das Bild hochgeladen hat, ist leider schon verstorben. --Kuhni74 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep COM:INUSE. Edit the file description as needed and change the filename or request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP France, there is no FOP in France Wiiformii (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same argument as I made in Commons:Deletion requests/File:RS Group plc logo.jpg; the UK has a very low threshold for copyright protection. It would be fine to host locally on enWiki and deWiki. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple file of this image - I just added this image without realizing that I had already uploaded it last year! Polotnikov (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear derivative work of a Breaking Bad poster [6] that is clearly copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I didn't know that.--ComputerHotline (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [7]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [8]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio: The source video is copyrighted and is not licensed under the CC BY 3.0. Also, I think the screenshot itself is also copyrighted, so it is not acceptable on Commons. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio: According to the file information, the author says that this logo is copyright-free, but it is unclear whether this means it is in the public domain (or licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0). So this logo may not be acceptable on Commons. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep. Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]